What are the limits of sovereignty? Are we clear on international norms?

Present debate on what to do about Syrias use of chemical weapons on rebels/government opponents takes us back to the broader issue of the limits of sovereignty. It seems apparent that we don't have shared global values on a country's interior use of chemical weapons or what to do about it even though this ostensibly has been a matter of global consensus since the end of World War II. .What action is justified and is it ok for anyone nation to act alone without a global consensus on the basis of "protecting its national interests"?

(I will add links to several TED convesrations we have had in the past on global values and global governance)

Sep 8 2013:
If the US is to intervene in Syria without the UN, it should be understood that the US doesn't have the moral or legal high ground, and that fact should raise eyebrows as to the US administration's ulterior motives.

First we should observe that Syria has not signed onto the Chemical Weapons Convention. Thus the US administration uses the phrase "international norms". They haven't broken international laws, but at most a set of ethical standards that other countries have agreed to. The legal case isn't there. Onto the moral case.

The US and NATO used white phosphorous and cluster munitions in Iraq and Libya. White phosphorous is not illegal under the CWC, but there has been much debate as to whether it should be. A treaty banning cluster bombs has been signed by 112 UN member states, excluding the US. The US administration recently signed a deal to sell 1,300 cluster bombs to the Saudis, their closest ally in the region. Aside from this illustrating the US administration's lack of concern for the proliferation of controversial weapons that violate "international norms", it highlights another interesting observation - the US has always backed Sunnis against Shi'ites.

It's interesting to see the US administration stand untried for force-feeding POWs and giving them away to other countries (always under the condition that they're imprisoned or at least completely monitored for the rest of their lives), as they claim the role of a benign world protector and bomb civilians in countries they're not at war with. The US administration had their eyes set on aiding the Syrian rebels long before the sarin strike in Damascus. How can we not draw parallels between this conflict and the Soviet War in Afghanistan? The US administration will discard the Sunni rebels after they use them, and then point to their radicalism to advocate perpetual war.

Sep 8 2013:
As I've said before, international law is completely irrelevant. There is no effective enforcement, which makes it nothing more than words on paper unless someone powerful decides to use it as an excuse to do something they'd do anyway (and its always an excuse, never a cause).

There is a case to be made for the morality of it, even if it does seem hypocritical. Might makes right in this world, unfortunately. Cest la vie.
By the way, all the talk of banning white phosphorous and cluster munitions is only signed by weak nations with little influence on the world stage. All the powerful countries don't sign it because they don't like hamstringing themselves (chemical weapons are seen as too unreliable to use even if they were legal). There is a similar attempt at banning automatic repeating firearms--I don't think as many as 50 countries signed it.

I'll be a fair bit more cynical though, and advocate that its simply within the US' own interests to make the attack. I've already said all this bellow in one post or another, so I'll be brief:
--It'll strengthen US influence in the region, which has been gradually diminishing ever since they got bogged down in Iraq. Influence is a zero sum game, which means influence from China, Iran and Russia is increasing the longer the US doesn't act.
--It'll show Iran and all its proxies that the US not only barks, but bites as well (the hesitation isn't helping on that score, by the way).
--Properly done, it can lead to stabilizing the region, at least in the long term (this would also involve backing a moderate militia once Assad falls).
--It'll show the US' allies in the region, especially bordering Syria, that the US does more than talk. This is especially crucial so that Israel doesn't involve itself in an all out regional war with Iran over the nuclear program, which is bad for US interests.

Sep 8 2013:
I see the web of political interests and shows of power. But look at every other Islamic civil war and regime change the US has been involved with. In Afghanistan, the CIA aided the mujahideen against the Soviet-backed regime, only to make way for the Taliban when that fell. The Taliban proved much easier to remove, but now the US risks unleashing a power vacuum if it withdraws its forces. Whether the US simply provides air support (Libya), or a full blown occupation (Iraq), the same problems emerge. It wastes lives and billions of dollars, and the rebels emerging victorious want Sharia law. Hold an election in the Middle East and the popular support goes to the Muslim Brotherhood. Maybe this plays well into the plans of the US administration (we see this going back to the US overthrow of the Iranian democracy), but it's not in the interest of the American people.

The situation in Syria is horrible, but I don't see how sarin gas makes it that much worse. Rebel factions aren't leading the most noble resistence either - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2bf_1378143986. I have no love for Assad, but I don't believe helping to remove him would necessarily lead to a beautiful new future for Syria.

Sep 9 2013:
I suppose that's another way of looking at it.
Let the Jihadists bleed themselves dry in Syria while you pass the popcorn. The local countries bordering with Syria don't particularly like this approach, because its too close to safely watch, but it could work for the US, despite the huge humanitarian cost.
If you're actually looking to end the war, Assad needs to go. The militias then fight it out, but like curing cancer with chemo therapy, its bound to get worse before it gets better.

Now that Obama has foolishly committed himself though... He's already lost a lot of face in the region and world at large, and he'll loose even more if he backs out.
A bombing campaign that wouldn't weaken Assad enough to allow the rebels to topple him is always on the table I suppose, which allows him to minimize loss of influence without overly committing.

My primary concern as is that if Obama is having such a hard time mustering up a minimalistic bombing campaign in Syria, he'll just sit on this hands in front of Iran.
Which means they either go nuclear, or Israel bombs their nuclear program and gets involved in an all out war with Iran and all its proxies, with minimal US support. Living in Israel, I'm not particularly fond of either scenario.

Sep 9 2013:
Obama is arguing for a "limited strike". Which is foolish, because his Secretary of State has been arguing for a regime change. Either side of him is arguing for no action or a regime change. He probably thinks a slap on the wrist is a nice comprimise, or it's his way of getting his fleeing fan base on board.

The US has been pretty vigilant in the Middle East over the Obama years. I'm sure the CIA knows exactly when and if Iran will get a nuclear weapon, and Obama will let them do whatever they want. Republican warhawks would step out of the woodwork for that invasion. That's not to say Obama will have anything to do with it. I doubt he had much to do with the killing of bin Laden.

I'm not passing the popcorn for Syria, but I'm not rooting for the rebels either. I would support humanitarian aid for refugees, or a UN intervention. The US has shown that nation building isn't its forte.

Sep 10 2013:
A UN intervention essentially means a team consisting of whichever country cares to help out. At the moment, that's US, France, Turkey, and maybe a few smaller powers. Not that different than the coalition we have right now, except for the UN's worthless stamp of approval.
Not that it'll ever happen. The Russians and Chinese will see to it.

Humanitarian aid for refugees would be welcome, but unfortunately costs money. Someone would have to foot the bill, and apparently no one wants to...

By the way, with operations like the Bin Laden assassination, the political leadership almost never has anything to do with it. All they do is authorize (or not authorize) the military or intelligence service's existing plan; then, they watch on their big screen TVs (popcorn optional). You can't expect a president or prime minister to micro manage an intel officer, after all.
A massive operation like bombing Iran's nuclear program on the other hand, that initiative does need to come from up to. The specifics are up to the military, but the order comes from the political side of things. And Obama has been disturbingly passive about the whole affair...

Sep 10 2013:
I was more trying to make the point that action against Iran would happen regardless of who was president (i.e. a weak Obama) because Iran is a big point of concern for both parties in the US. Though I think Americans are becoming increasingly weary of the US's foreign policy incentives. The rhetoric that Bush used to fire up the Republicans ("They hate us for our freedom. They're harboring terrorists") likely wouldn't be taken seriously today for the invasion of a Middle Eastern country. Iran on the otherhand has been a big subject of debate in US elections, with both sides favoring action in response to a real threat. Considering intelligence agency operations such as Stuxnet, I doubt any real threat in Iran would be safe from a US response, even if Congress were for some reason against it.

An official UN intervention would shift the responsibility to the UN. Sure it's practicly the same countries baring the financial burden, but it wouldn't be the US's problem like Iraq and Afghanistan. And it involves Russia, which has proven to be an incredible obstacle to intervention, but it would guarantee that the solution wouldn't play into the geopolitical interests of a single country. This might not float well with Americans or Israelis, but if the issue is chemical weapons, it makes sense. If not, let's just be real and say we're looking to shift the balance of power against Iran and Russia.

Though it looks like Obama saw the writing on the wall, and is considering Putin's diplomatic solution. Is this the right thing to do, sieze the weapons and call it a day, or would this wrongly legitimize Assad's presidency?

Sep 10 2013:
Putins proposed solution essentially allows Assad to hand over the chemical weapons with one hand, without even pausing the killing with the other.

Its like the police tracking down a killer, explaining to him that the hollow point bullets he's been using are illegal, and take them away. The killer promptly thanks the police for showing him the error of his ways, loads up a clip of full metal jacket ammo into his gun, and keeps right on shooting.

Chemical weapons aren't in the same class as biological and nuclear, even if the law says otherwise; they're frankly not a whole lot more damaging than conventional munitions. The method of the slaughter shouldn't be the focus it, it should be the fact that there was a slaughter to begin with.

It would also make Obama loose serious face as opposed to an attack. Of course, if he's counted his votes in congress and realized he's short, this may be his way of loosing minimal face.
Going to congress in of itself was idiotic. A declaration of war requires the element of surprise and a measure of swiftness and decisiveness to maximize success, and any form of parliament is inherently none of those things. This isn't about democracy or any form of checks and balances; from a purely pragmatic standpoint, use of force needs to be the domain of the executive body, and no one else.

Sep 10 2013:
Many Americans would raise incredible issue with the president not seeking a declaration of war from Congress. Even Bush went to Congress for Iraq. After the numerous scandals that have plagued Obama's administration (Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, the NSA revelations) an executive decision to invade against the will of the public would certainly have House Republicans beginning the impeachment process. That might be a laughing point for Eric Li, but many Americans see executive orders as being in the realm of dictators.

Is it really about ending the killing, or the opportunity to ouste Assad? If it were a genocide, I would see it as more of a humanitarian crisis, but it's a civil war. Should the US step in where ever jihad points its finger? Is it really about ending the violence, or playing chess pieces against Iran and Hezbollah?

I don't mind discussing the possible advantages of pushing back against Shia Islam, but if that's the elephant in the room then we should call it what it is.

Sep 11 2013:
Its probably easier for me to understand the need for executive orders for matters involving application of force. My country is much more intimately familiar with that sort of thing--we just see it as a day to day necessity.
I can understand how Americans who hadn't had a close brush with war (as in, on their own home territory) since the civil war 150 years ago might have forgotten that these sorts of measures need to be the domain of the executive branch, and the executive branch alone.

I also don't have any issue with Shia Islam in general. My problem is with Iran's ruling body, its proxies, Assad and Hezbollah, and most importantly the nuclear program.
Pushing back against them should be a priority for the US, and quite a number of other countries. In Israel, hardly anyone is in need of convincing; being on the same side of the Atlantic as potential Iranian nukes is enough.

Sep 11 2013:
It really goes back to the founding of the country (which is almost legendary here)- the founding fathers believed the executive branch was most prone to war, and therefor felt the need to delegate the power to declare war soley to Congress. They were largely against engaging in foreign wars altogether. To quote George Washington:

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

Sure the United States is a global hegemon today, but the founding fathers haven't been forgotten. So there is a big distinction between the dream America that's faded into ideals and the world power the United States has become, and some strong desires among the people to reconcile the two. We see this with the rise of the anti-American hero, that loves his country but hates his government (Edward Snowden is an example). The AUMF that allows the President to use war powers to pursue Al Qaeda and associates has largely been seen as a sacreligious attack on American idealism (though neocons would bark at this), a perversion of the definition of war giving unholy powers to the executive branch. That's why you see so much repulsion in America towards Obama's belief that he has the power to attack Syria without a vote from Congress. While executive power to declare war makes more sense in Israel, for a global hegemon it's the path to another Rome.

Nice to meet you and thanks for joining this discussion. The points you make are not lost on me . The U,S. is playing fast and loose with facts on this I'd say and I hope all nations constrain my own from pursuing the line they are on.

Syria like Afghanistan and other "nations" that aren't really nations in the sense of shred history and culture are essentially failed states. There is nothing emergent that offer any hope out of the chaos of often cruel rebel factions and a "nothing to lose" President Assad. We don't have the right international institutions in place to help countries like Syria achieve a more normal and workable future for themselves and nothing the U.S. is about now has anything to do with that..

Sep 12 2013:
Fred, 3 days ago: Your wrote in part.
"If the US is to intervene in Syria without the UN, it should be understood that
the US doesn't have the moral or legal high ground, and that fact should raise
eyebrows as to the US administration's ulterior motives."
===
I agree -- Fred, would you mind if I changed the word "intervene" to the word
"armed aggression"?

Defending ourselves from attack is fine, but when we are not attacked, and we
strike, then we become the "armed aggressor". I believe to "intervene" is a
word better reserved for the diplomatic corps.
===
Another item. There has been much gossip about the United States Government
aiding and abetting Syrian rebels for the length of the Civil WAR, by providing
Weapons, Ammo, and Training. If any of this is true, then isn't Obama just trying
to win the Civil WAR for the rebels. And are not we America's the laughing stock
of the World?

Sep 12 2013:
That is absolutely true. We've aided radical Sunni rebels for decades. That's the most interesting part of the whole post-911 saga. Both Al Qaeda and the Taliban received persistent US aid during the Soviet War in Afghanistan. To this day, despite the supposed "War on Terror", Sunni rebels are our proxy army.

Sep 6 2013:
Linda,
Glad to met you too, I believe it all start with a knowing and grows with the evolution of consciousness, by doing what you are doing you are definitely helping to bring light to matters otherwise ignored by the majority of us.
The battles of the future will be fought in new grounds, and in these electronics spaces is where the key for the liberation lies, because is here where we can all connect and be one, and make the puppeteers understand that they power is ever so slightly escaping from their grip. Going back to the basics lets our voices to be heard loud and clear, we demand peace, we no longer want our or their children's blood be shed for the sake of the international corporations and their greed. in peace.

Sep 10 2013:
I don’t think sovereignty is an issue if a country is in a serious failed state. Early intervention like sanctions does not involve sovereignty and I believe very seriously failed states must loose there right of sovereignty. In a ranking system loss of sovereignty would be attached to set of rankings automatically (genocide for example would trigger the loss of sovereignty)

In criminal law your property rights do not protect you from the police and I think the same applies to seriously failed states.

Sep 12 2013:
I oppose sanctions by one economic state over another.
The result is a pressure upon the citizens, and not their
leadership.

The cutting off the head however is a better solution.
But the flaw is of course retaliation, as we have seen
George W. Bush perform for the failed assassination
attempt of GHW Bush, made by Saddam Hussein.
Only gossip of course. But then, what isn't?

We the people living on this planet are too wrapped up
in ownership, sovereignty, and geographical governments.
Nomadic life has lost it's appeal, and most of it's populations.

Thinking, acting, opposing, are all attributes of citizens that
have no impact upon geographical governments, who merely
ignore them until they become too boisterous.

Shadow governments will prevail over the next couple hundred
years as communications survived surveillances and babel is
lost to understanding. A slow process that might be stopped
by mother nature, if the co2 scientists are right. If they are, then
it's back to the caves and drawing board. reboot.

Sep 8 2013:
USA is a complicated nation,who acts viewing itself as the police of this planet. What's inside its charitable outward intention, is it seeks to retain its position as the sole superpower. However, American troops sometimes do help people of other nation out,they should be thankful to us. But, when we consider the whole issue,think about the trials we've overcome,the destruction we've gone through,whether intervening other country's conflict is worthwhile. Look at the enemies we've made in the mideast, I wonder what it would like if we didn't engage in any war which did not directly concerned us,why should we put us on fire for the sake of other nations.

Sep 8 2013:
Except that now the middle east is actually asking for an intervention.

Its not a matter of there being a 100% accurate doctrine to apply to every intervention. Its neither universally a bad idea, nor globally correct.
Like all things in life, its about knowing to pick your battles.

The invasion of Iraq in2003 was poorly thought out. The recent intervention in Libya on the other hand, went spectacularly well.

Sep 10 2013:
A single death, tragic as it may be, is nothing in a war. More than a hundred thousand people have already been killed in Syria, and that figure is already several months old.
A single death is a tragedy, a million a statistic...

The intervention in Libya made the oil flow again, and cut the war short by months or maybe even years, saving countless lives, all with very minimal Western losses. I'd call that spectacularly well, by the brutal standards of war.

And the middle east most definitely is asking for an intervention. The Arab league has already authorized it pretty much unanimously, Israel has been pushing for it diplomatically, and Turkey straight up offered to join in on the attack.
Iran is the only country in the region with objections... And Assad himself if you're willing to count him I suppose.

A bit on the bloodthirsty side. WW2 60 million dead,
and an uncounted peoples maimed and raped.
Our next big one could be 600 million and that's
just a small estimate. Big Bombs big Killings.

Something our President forgets. Youths.
Youths are the fodder of WAR.
Youths will seek revenge.
More Killing more Revenge Seeking Youths.

A resolution --
There would be less WAR if the requirement was
that the Leader of any nation so inclined to make
war, was to first have to commit suicide. And the
Leader of the losers, would have to commit suicide
upon surrender.

I think what I was trying to say in my pretty opaque and facetious way is that perhaps the fulcrum of change for a heterogeneous humanity is no longer within the nation state paradigm. We therefore must and can find other "solid places" upon which we can leverage the "change we want to see in the world".

My view stems from the following observations:

1. "We the People" implies a small world where we expect our "neighbour" to share a less than dynamic/context sensitive world view of Good and Evil, the value of life, what we want from it and how we want to live it. A homogenous view of humanity if you will.

2. Nation States are still stuck in slightly more subtle world view which accepts the globe as populated by heterogeneous nations, but with each in turn populated by a homogenous citizenry all sharing the same set of core values.

Luckily (in my opinion) there are now different modalities by which groups of people may emerge, come to a consensus and act in a relatively short time. The key characteristics here are emergent and dynamic.

Innovative use of crowd sourcing, social media and new technologies could allow consensus to emerge across geopolitical borders, time zones, religious and cultural divides. Giving a voice to huge emergent groups of individuals who share a perspective on a single issue, while not worrying about developing a nebulous idea of what "humanity" believes. This could initially be a powerful lobbying tool, but later help to build a new force for real action in the world.

Mark Zuckerberg wasn't invited to the G8 because Ms Merkel thought he presented a nicer view than David Cameron across the table. My feeling is we could start using that influence right now in some way. Maybe someone cleverer than me can think of a way!

Sep 6 2013:
Over the past few years I've been wondering if we are now moving into a new paradigm in which ideas of sovereignty and nation, particularly when predicated on parameters of geography, have become untenable. It's probable that this is no grand revelation to the rest of you, but it takes a while for these things to dawn on me.

We live in an era in which very moderate wealth (in 1st world terms) is, for many purposes, a very practicable means of circumventing national border, tax, and even criminal responsibility.

Facebook, population 700 (ish) million citizens and an apparently permanent seat at the G8 (soon to be G9?), would seem to be in prime position to lobby for nationhood/sovereignty. Why would we say no to that?

In this context, in what terms do we recognise the nationality of an individual, which entity has greatest claim to sovereignty? If I earn my income from an online enterprise with a customer base in CountryA, I pay taxes (or not) in CountryB and CountryC, I'm married to a woman from CountryD, I was born in CountryG and live (for now) in CountryH; well you get the picture....

If I kill you and steal your stuff in World of Warcraft, I get a badge; if I do the same in London I go to jail for a very long time, if I do the same in Texas I'm executed by the State some decade and a half later.

When I killed you in WoW I looked you in the eye I as plunged my dagger into your heart, while for both London and Texas crimes I actually shot you from a remote control drone (Oh yes, I went there!), which I controlled via several internet hosts and a geosynchronous satellite from my bedroom in Quebec.

Maybe then, in this strange new world, we can at least be sure of a shared humanity. Trouble is that a shared understanding of what constitutes "humanity" is not guaranteed.

Ultimately my “humanity” tells me that an entity abdicates claims to sovereignty the moment it intentionally drops bombs on its own children. At that point, my "humanity" requires me to act.

First, nice to meet you and may thanks for stopping by this conversation to collaboratively peer under the covers of the present Syria debate.

We are all converging I think in the same place which is that the institutions we have in place globally and nationally on justified interventions in a govern nation serve very different interests and values that "we the people" hold globally We the people want institutions and remedies that serve life dignity and earth.

Our elected reps inherit laws and international treaties and guidance on when we can intervene in another nation that are out of synch with our values, and hopefully at least some of theirs.

Clearly we cannot change those institutions in time to effect an institutional/legal course correction in Syria ( the allowed military intervention is is if you have and use chemical weapons we will and can invade)I

So the question becomes nation by nation can we make our own legislative bodies nation by nation vote our way on Syria and can we begin to evolve national policies more inline with our values

Sep 6 2013:
Would the US intervene in Syria if this country were in Africa or South America? perhaps but more likely they'll use other methods of persuasion, we are asking the wrong question here and might never agree in the definition or the limits of sovereignty. Let's talk human lives, in both sides of the conflict. Let's for a minute get over the wrong concept that the societies of the first world are more "civilized" because we are not in any way shape or form, to live in close contact with nature does not makes a human been a savage or a society lesser deserving of having the same rights as the first world nations. Webster definition of savage" lacking the restrains normal to civilized human beings". How is that with all the technologies and advancements we have only become more sophisticated predators of the planet and our fellow human beings.

First Glad to meet you and thank you for stopping by to collaboratively discern what is underneath the current global debate on Syria.

Where we seem to have come is very close to what you are saying. We have basically collaboratively come to the fact that the underbelly to Syria is that our global institutions and the remedies they offer really are about controlling nay build up of military power by other nations, especially those with a leadership that is closer to our enemies than to us as is the case with Syria.

These institutions and the governments that control their actions know that "we the people" would never authorize any kind of military intervention on the basis of why they actually want to intervene so they "sell" us the intervention on values and principles that "we the people" widely hold.

So the question we have come to is in the case of Syria can we the people rising up nation by nation to voice something closer to what you have posted can prevent the remedies authorized for intervention from being applied n this case.

It is absurd and inconsistent ,as you say in your post, to talk "humanitarian" when we don't in fact intervene militarily or otherwise if the government in charge is doing what we ask them to do on and strategic interests, especially access to that country's natural resources by U.S. and EU corporations.

How many inncocent women and children did the US kill with its drone strikes in Libya on questionable "verified enemy targets". No one talked sanctions against us. Is a known and predictable unavoidable tally of civilian deaths by use of drones not very bit as much an offense against humanity as what is being alleged in Syria?

So Cecilia, yes, lets talk human lives on both sides of the conflict. What would you call for actions that protect and serve life and are there institutional remedies that allow or provide for that? How do we make the institutions we have ( our own national governments honor that?

Sep 6 2013:
Which 'national interests' are to be 'protected' in the USA if Syria uses chemical weapons within an internal conflict within its own borders? I think many nations will have a very close look on those arguments in case of an US military intervention in Syria.

What also will become difficult, at least on international level, is the line of argument to prove that Syria did use chemical weapons, especially against the background of the former 'proof' for weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein... sort of the 'cry wolf' syndrome.

The humanitarian argumentation is difficult for the US too. First because the US possesses weapons of mass destructions too and didn't sign the nuclear convention, and second, because there have been many civil wars and even whole genocides since WW2 which didn't trigger any 'humanitarian response'. At plain body count it doesn't make any difference if 200 people died of conventional weapons or due to chemical weapons. And here the USA is not alone, as most other western nations, mine included, didn't help people in need where they could have. Rwanda may be named as one example here.

So given the lack of comprehensible arguments, an US military intervention in Syria may not serve any global consensus at all, especially as the people of Great Britain, one of the most reliable allies of the US, decided against an involvement in this matter.

By the instable and risky political situation in this part of the world, I can only hope, that the US and the UN is seeking for alternative solutions but war to help the people in Syria who are suffering a horrible faith.

I highly agree with you that this world needs a global consensus on war, but in general and not only on certain types of weaponry. We need this consensus to be based on humanitarian principles exclusively, without any particular geopolitical or resource based interest of any intervening and helping country.
We need to cut military spending worldwide and we need it now!

Sep 6 2013:
"We need to cut military spending worldwide and we need it now"

While I do not outwardly or inwardly approve of war and feel violence is a final solution not a first one, I disagree with the statement I quoted.

If we suddenly drop our guns and chant peace peace holding hands and blowing kisses.. I don't think the rest of the world is going to say "well duh why didn't we think of that!" and join in.

No sir.

I think the violent bloodthirsty cultures of the world are going to see a lamb among wolves and lick their chops eager to be the first ones to have dinner

I believe it was George Orwell who said "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

I feel that we can lay down arms without fear, when we turn them, into us. Because as long as there is a them and us, there will be competition for who will rule. At the end of the day I feel it is better to rule, than be ruled, unless of course that ruler is God, in which case we would all be wise to bend a knee.

Sep 6 2013:
I don't think any of us speaking here together are flower chidren of the 60's putting daisies in the barrel of rifles. I think what I hear peope saying here is we will not simply rubber stamp th eold paradigm and we will draw the line right here that the U.S. may not usemilitary force, boots or no boots to address what it sees as a crisis n Syria )( or is telling us is a crisis in Syria.

No question we have serious problems in Syria. No question U.S. interests are compromised. Economic interests are compromised. So let's talk about that with transparency and honesty

Sep 6 2013:
By its intrinsic nature the concept of sovereignty can not be limited. A state either is sovereign, or it is not and the only valid instance to decide this is any state by itself.

On the geopolitical stage this fundamental rule may not be favored by any nation, but this is the way it is.

In terms of 'shared global values', the current situation in Syria is actually pretty clear, as Syria neither signed nor acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention and therefore and as a sovereign state does not violate any international agreements on this. The 'global consensus' since World War II, which you mentioned, only applies to the signing states of this Convention which legally binds only them.

Chemical as well as biological and nuclear are weapons of mass destructions and for all three types exists international conventions. The US, for instance, and as a sovereign state signed for chemical and biological, but didn't sign for nuclear weapons. This is how the US positioned itself on this matter and it is either accepted or disapproved by other nations, but thats all other nations can do about it.

The US didn't sign the conventions for Cluster Munitions and Antipersonnel Mines as well.

The legal scope of those international norms and conventions only apply to the signing states and therefore does not affect the non signing states, which in case of Syria, does not legitimate any legal actions.

Therefore it becomes argumentative difficult for the US to legitimize any military intervention, because Syria does not violate a convention it didn't sign.

The debate about 'protecting national interests' in the given context is bizarre, as it conflicts not only with the Syrian sovereignty but also with the concept of an 'global consensus', as national interests are its opposite.

Sep 6 2013:
While I understand what you are saying, and agree with most of it, the U.S. can defend any attack on the grounds that we have troops, citizens, and allies close enough for those chemical weapons to be used on them.That being the case, the U.S. does not need to use legal arguments against the Syrian state, but can use the fact that they are a threat to U.S. interests, safety, and soverignty. As a U.S. citizen, and former army NCO, I truly wish we wouldn't stick our noses in to other countries problems, but, we tried that in world war two, and eventually we got drug into it. We can no longer sit on the wayside and allow dictators to have this kind of control.

Sep 7 2013:
Yet still there is a difference of being 'close' to chemical weapons to be 'used on them' and to finally being 'used on them'.

I noticed a general shift in perception in recent years that 'preventive military interventions' are not considered anymore to be nothing but the actual aggression of a war.

There is no 'first strike' out of defense reasons just by plain logic! Because the one who strikes first turns its opponent, even the most but just potential aggressor, into defense while taking away any alternative outcome of the former situation. Therefore it can not be a valid argument in saying to have prevented aggressive actions while anticipating them.

So as long Syria didn't actually use any chemical weapons on US troops, citizens or close allies, there is no legitimation in any military intervention within any other sovereign country whatsoever.

Because if you would follow this logic, there was no excuse why the US didn't already attack China for its potential thread in possessing nuclear weapons of mass destruction, or Russia and others. And any other nation could legitimize to attack the US for the nuclear weapons it posses itself.

On this we like to stress the argument, that there is a difference in being an 'democratic' nation or an 'dictatorship', which, in itself, isn't logic as well, as it only claims for a difference it destroys itself the moment so called 'preventive' actions take place from the 'democratic' side.

Those of us who happen to life in democratic societies may not like the concept of dictatorships, and so do I, but if we start to bomb any nation who didn't transform into democracy by now, we would nothing but devalue our system we wish other nations to transform into.

Because of this I disagree with you saying, that the 'U.S. does not need to use legal arguments against the Syrian state'. Who if not democratic states do we democratic citizens expected to legitimize its military actions?

Sep 7 2013:
History has proven that small dictatorships will use any weapons of mass destruction that they possess. I am not for waiting and reacting. That would be disasterous, and all the peacenicks would all of a sudden cry bloody murder for allowing that to happen.

Sep 7 2013:
This is what makes us belief of being different from any dictatorship, to have not only some reasons or just 'gut feelings' to go for war, but to have legal arguments for it and true facts to make such decisions.

But if we just do what we like and because of what we think what may happen just because 'we can', we won't do any better than any dictatorship gone wild.

One of the highest achievement we are proud of, is the legal system in our democracies, to separate us from any arbitrariness of dictatorships. But this legal system doesn't end at our borders, as we are responsible of our actions on international levels as well. If law and order is what we stand for, we have to life up to it even in risky situations.

I also think we shouldn't keep on practicing our double-standards with dictatorships in general, in which we tend to 'tolerate' them the moment they are profitable or useful to us, yet condemn or even bomb them the moment they turn their back on us.

Same goes for China. We keep having this feeling of our moral superiority towards them, suppressing their people, yet if we talk business, who cares for those details? This our active international behavior is what we are measured against by other nations and political systems and not against our lip-service.

And as long as we act differently of what we claim, we are not only loosing our credibility but being the cause that other nations may feel threatened by us, instead of being the reason to rethink their own system.

I always wondered why the US operates approximately 1000 military bases worldwide of which many of them are located within areas of scarce resources, especially within the middle east. I don't know how you see it in the US, yet the latest military conflicts you had in those areas didn't improve the overall opinion other nations formed about your country and made people think about the true intentions of this involvement.

Sep 7 2013:
We stood by and watched Britain almost bombed into the stone age, and did nothing. Same goes for China. It took us being attacked to get us to look at what happened. I am not saying I agree with reasons for attacking one dictatorship and not another, especially if monetary gain is afoot. But, the U.S. and it's allies have made it their business to step in and protect innocent civilians before, and I am sure will do it again. Again, I am not defending only going after regimes that we stand to lose resources, and not going after those that are considered allies, but we have become, like it or not, the worlds police. Most of these so called credibility losses actually started out asking for help, until they got into a position of power then they wanted us out so that they could oppress the people. Personally, I wish our congress would vote to stop giving aide to the world, but that isn't going to happen, because the corporations who are truly in charge won't allow it.

What you have each said is right at the heart of it and as Timothy invites us to dom we have to consider past applications of intervenetion, or non-intervention and the reasons for it.( My mother was a survivor of the London Blitz..when itwasn't clear the U/S. would help out so I grew up with stories of how war terrified inncocents. Ladies knitting in subway bomb shelters where they stayed for days some times couldn't undersrand why the rest of the world didn't care and wasn't helping)

Western Nations, U.S. at the center ho have taken up the job of "world police" ( we'll talk to the U.N. but if you don't agree we'll do what we want to do any way) have to revisit what they are policing and what the aim of that policing are. More and more of "we the people" aren't happy with the old paradigm that still governs in situations like the present one with Syria.

We can't just "oppose" and resist. We have to offer solutions through specific changes in law and policy in our own nations.

Sep 7 2013:
History has also proven that any weapon of mass destruction was used by any political system.

History has also proven that the German nation is violent to its core. We didn't only stop the violently expanding Roman empire in those days, we seem to like to expand our own territory from time to time. WWI, WWII and we do not even shied away on genocides. So if history is your teacher, and change no option, it would from a preventive standpoint make more sense to wipe us out, before we change back our minds. Given the fact, that we already regained the economical lead in Europe coming from ashes, our newest military restraints may just be part of a bigger plan ...

I don't see Syria and Iran to have such a record ...

It seems our points of view keep flipping on opposite sites, because the involvement of the USA during WWII and against my very country is to me the best military intervention your nation ever did. And it ended ever since in my eyes in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If its just was 'your' and 'your' allies business to 'protect innocent civilians', I would not have written a single word here. But I can not remain silent, if humanitarian reasons are misused over and over again, because if that was what it is about, where have we been in Rwanda? What is the humanitarian difference to die of gas or by a bullet, shrapnel, blast-wave, land mine, etc, etc, etc ...

Can mass destruction only be reduced to the number of strokes it takes? I don't think so!

Humanity is no matter of the 'form on the day'. Yet if its practiced this way, it isn't honest. It is that simple and my nation not better than yours on this.

A 'world police' without a binding adjudicative authority is de facto a police state, which is nothing but a relative to dictatorship.

Sep 4 2013:
I think that what is absolutely essential is multiple independent confirmations of the source of information with regard to this sort of event.

Having some pictures presented to me on the news is not going to cut it, I'm afraid.

Modern media is so easily constructed and manipulated that it behooves us all to look beyond mainstream media and government propaganda to search for the truth of the situation. Despite living in the so-called Information Age, this is much harder than people think.

Killing people is not okay whether it is with chemical weapons or regular weapons; whether it is done out of indignation, some perceived sense of righting a wrong or just plain political control.

Nothing is simple and black and white - this realisation is the true worth of social networking and alternative communication channels.

Sep 4 2013:
Hey SCott...long time..so good to see you again and thanks for your comment.

Yes that's it exactly. We let the nations that have decided for reasons we'll never really know, to be intervenors when they have been collaborators right up til then and the we rely on phony documentation by the nation that wants to intervene.

Using might to force allowing a completely independent no political verification by trusted peace keepers who are experts as well should work..and shouldn't there be some sort of penalties for nations who cook stuff up to justify interventions they want to make for other reasons. Shouldn'tthe U.S. have sanctions for the fraudulent intervention in Iraq and if this one turns out to be fraudulent as a nobel prize winner who was just there says ( I will post her speech by edit).

Is this a possible way to break the might makes right cycle and to force transparency??

And to your last point..yes I agree there is a might arising from within "what is" and it is speaking all over the world. "we the people" are a might that sees things differently , has different principles and values from those who lead us in title as elected officials.. When the people awaken and speak the game changes.

Sep 4 2013:
And here Scott is a perfect example of your point of how the internet has given us voice to make change..This post was in my in box right after I posted to you. 73% of move on members nationwide oppose the Presidents' plan to intercede militarily boots or no boots.

"Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee began debating whether to authorize the use of military force in Syria in response to reports of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government.

Because this is such a big decision, we asked every MoveOn member to weigh in on whether MoveOn should support or oppose the congressional authorization to use military force in Syria.

The results are in, and they are unequivocal:

73% said MoveOn should oppose the congressional Authorization to Use Military Force in Syria.

History has shown again and again that even a "limited" military engagement can quickly become a slippery slope to seemingly endless war. But stopping this war is within reach.

Consistent polling shows that the majority of Americans are opposed to this military intervention, and more than 147 members of Congress are on record as firmly opposed to or leaning against it.2 But mainstream media outlets and many elected officials are trying hard to make us think that strikes are inevitable.3

So we need to unleash the power of our more than 8 million member community right away to make it clear to Congress that we oppose military action in Syria. Congress will vote on the authorization to use military force as soon as next week, and members of Congress are making up their minds right now, so we need to act fact.

Can you call your Senators and Representative right now and tell them to 'Vote No' on the use of military force in Syria? Here are the numbers to call:"

Those voices and millions of others won't let the game continue to be might makes right.

Sep 4 2013:
Hello Martin and nice to meet you. Thnak you for joining me in this conversation that I really want to work through to clarify my own thoughts.

In the past here at TED when we have spoken about the limits of Sovereignty we have spoken most about acts or policies that cross borders and affect other nations..For example a nation that sends industrial pollution into the air affects the air quality of neighboring nations.

This discussed intervention in Syria says there are certain "crimes against humanity" that are just tolerable and justify some sort of outside action when they occur.. No one is talking publicly about the fear that these weapons will be used by terrorists in other nations or against other nations, possibly Israel.

Is a strictly internal government policy , whether by democracy or not, a country's own business? And if not , why not?

Sep 4 2013:
Of course that is what is going on and that is how it works..doubt

so I hear you & others here saying that the very idea of sovereignty is an illusion a myth because of the imbalance of power and control of world resources.

A nation whether really some tattered remnant of some former nation or not has only the sovereignty it can attain through power..its own or that of its allies ( which in Syrias case are Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia all countries still producing sweet crude.

So any voted or agreed by treaty consensus on what a country can ad cannot do within its own borders would only ever work the way it was supposed to when the asserting nations have power and the erring nation has none.

That I get and agree with totally.

What brought me here are questions about the nuances and complications of "shared global values" we think exists..like that chemical weapons should not exist. Period.

Sep 4 2013:
Hi Barry..thanks for joining and thanks for your thoughts. As I just wrote to Martin, this is an issue I am wrestling with myself and looking to get clearer on through exchange with fellow tedsters.

I am not so much interested in what nations are actually doing and saying and whether it's right or wrong and until we, amongst ourselves here at TED, in this conversation, have a collaborative sense of when a nations internal affairs warrant external intervention.

Then as a separate consideration we could collaborate on the process for deliberating and deciding appropriate intervention.

What in your opinion that is strictly internal to a nation, has no clear threats to any other nation, no intention of harm to other nations, warrants intervention by other nations?

Ideally, the limits of sovereignty would be clearly and firmly established by international law, as would the consequences for breaking international law. The consequences should be appropriate to the original harm.

Intervention in a sovereign country is justified by the harm being done. But the intervention will be resisted, so it involves an element of force, which causes harm. So the decision is between two forms of harm, and the crux of the decision will be the specific harms involved.

It is very difficult to define, in general terms, when international intervention is justified. I think it makes more sense to establish a tribunal for making that decision for individual cases. Unfortunately, in the real world, it is impossible to establish an impartial tribunal. Also, at this point in history, it is impossible to make such decisions without considering which countries will supply the resources for the intervention.

We might be able to establish some general guidelines regarding what types of crimes justify intervention, but I suspect that the evil doers of the world will be sufficiently creative to make any such guidelines inadequate. It is even possible that guidelines could be counterproductive, allowing the evil doers to game the system, to the detriment of their populations.

In very general terms, intervention is justified when the harm being committed involves many lives. It is justified when the means used, like chemical weapons, has been outlawed by the international community.

Our concepts about crimes keep changing. Andrew Jackson was considered a hero in the USA, largely because of the way he dealt with the native Americans. Today his actions would be considered a crime against humanity. Today, many of us believe that an intervention in Syria is clearly justified. After the fact, fifty years from now, the intervention might be considered just as criminal as the use of chemical weapons.

Sep 13 2013:
I have new questions about "the limits pf Sovereignty" inspired by recent reading about Syrias political and economic history, the history of the rebellion and recent changes in the shape and nature of that.

(1) does any nation established by military seizure of power and not affording free elections have equal claim to sovereignty? Are dictatorships "free game", free trade zones on whatever interventions any nation chooses for any reason? ( that seems to be the understanding......) .

(2) is "civil war" within a "sovereign" nation something outsiders should get involved in if there are no legitimate humanitarian risks to "citizens" and no military threats to other nations? When we had what England still calls our "civil war" and what we call our revolutionary war other nations were involved for and against the revolutionaries.

(3)The U.S., at least by rhetoric, seems to think that there is a consensus among free people that all persons seeking freedom, democracy and free choice should be supported and that that is a special case when it is "ok" for a nation to operate on its own and covertly. Is there consensus on that?

Sep 11 2013:
Lindsay Newland Bowker
Jumping to conclusions, by assigning guilt to the Syrian Government is a bit of a stretch.

The alleged use of chemical weapons upon the innocent men, women and wee children of Syria,
by party's unknown, would seem to be more truthful a statement to base your debate upon..
===
The United States Government has a rich history of Lying to Start WARS.
Most of us are aware of the bogus CIA intelligence that led to Colin Powell's
persuasive false statements at the United Nations, resulting in WAR with Iraq.

The week before Obama's "Call to Arms" against Syria, he'd already began to
move his Navy Destroyers into place, and shifted his Aircraft Carrier fleet to assist.
With 200 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles at hand, he had his own Weapons of Mass
Destruction to threaten Syria.

Obama shot himself in the foot.
He went on national TV to advise the American people of his plans to punish the
Syria's government, and said plainly that he didn't need the Congress's approval
to make a "limited strike upon Syrian soil.

In Politics, like everything else. "Timing is critical".
Obama had recently been a guest on the Jay Leno TV show. Jay asked him
a tricky question about the NSA spy-surveillances of Americans. He lied
when he said that the NSA did not do such things. A simple statement,
that would then haunt him. Like Richard Nixon, he stuck his foot in his mouth.

Most Democrats and Republicans had heard about it.
Now when it mattered most, Obama's credibility was called into question.
The Directors of DNI, NSA, and DHS had not been truthful themselves with
the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
More "inaccurate statements were surfacing. And, at the wrong time.

Big mistake.
===
Does anyone else wonder why the congress doesn't jail those who lie under Oath.
I must just be blood-thirsty.

I think if you read the whole conversation you'll see we are all pretty much in agreement with what you have said here.

No question I bring to TED contains my version of what I think the answer is. Those kinds of questions never lead anywhere fruitful.

My question was an open one more prompted by than about Syria alone and all who have contributed here have evolved the exploration to places well beyond anything institutions will reach right now. It has been very fruitful and many many wonderful insightful comments and respectful exchanges..

Sep 10 2013:
This leaked document reported in Christian Sceince Monitor says that Iran has been warning the U.S. State Department for more than a year that a rebel faction within Syria possese and is using chemical weapons.

If true ( both that such letters exist and they report accurately), aren't our officials violating sovereignty every time they fabricate and falsify the basis and purpose of their actions?

Isn't sovereignty as a concept something that belongs to the people of a nation and not to the authority vested in their leaders?

The beautiful eloquent and still relevant Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy has a lovely section on the expulsion and permanent banishment of those who abuse authority by using it for a purpose other than the welfare and well being of the all the peoples of the confederacy. All gather for the ceremony which the offending parry must personally present at. Each of the symbols of authority vested are one by one taken back and at the end the offending party walks out of the circle and away from all contact with all peoples of the confederacy forever.

Sep 10 2013:
I highly doubt the authenticity of the claim. Its seems far too convenient.

A rebel group got its hands on and is using chemical weapons, and a Sunni one at that? It fits the Iranian interest like a glove. There is every reason to suspect its fabricated, especially considering how close of a watch Assad has been keeping on his chemical arsenal to prevent exactly that.

Sep 10 2013:
Be that as it may, ( and we may yet know the truth), what is your opinion on whether sovereignty belongs to "we the people or not" and whether pubic officials who lie or misrepesent facts to win our support violate our sovereignty and should be held accountable. Impeachmemt is sort of that but that is for only criminal not ethical breeches I believe.